I agree. I'm deep into specialty coffee and I love making and drinking coffee a lot, but three cups is already higher than what I drink on a normal day. Also, most of the time when I go above this threshold, I drink decaf.
The reactions to your comment got me curious enough to check. The mug I use for coffee and tea holds almost exactly 400 mL when comfortably full and I used to drink 2 of those per day (across 12 hours or so). Based on that, personally I'd consider ~800 mL of black coffee to be on the high end of moderate consumption.
What you're describing applies to coffee shops where a latte has the same amount of coffee regardless of the cup size.
Others are mostly describing someone who makes coffee for themself at home or in a break room. That person likely chooses a cup size depending on how much they coffee they want, how frequently they want a refill, etc.
you're partially right. It doesn't matter if they had specified the grams of coffee beans they used to produce those cups. It would have been better to specify both number of cups and how they were produced.
I drink a small cup in the morning (like 250 ml) and 1-2 Moka pot espressos (like one shot). This typically happens between 7-10am. No more coffee after that most of the time. I like to keep it in the morning routine with breakfast. Green tea and water in my afternoons.
Personally, I don't feel any kind of "drug like" effects from this routine. I wonder about the strength of coffee people are drinking and the effects of drinking throughout the day rather than just the morning.
Anecdotally, during grad school I drank more per serving and throughout the day, and I certainly felt quite different than my current routine.
Like most things, I think people need to find some moderation/balance.
It's less about the strength of coffee than about your metabolism. I used to be unaffected by caffeine, and now it takes a few sips in the morning to mess with my sleep in the evening - sth that started happening in my twenties I believe, possibly liver-related.
I can have a coffee a bit before bed if I really want. I also used to think I had a "high metabolism", but don't say that anymore since it comes off as kind of bogus.
Unfortunately no. It's my inference, given that 23andme didn't find any genetic indicator (CYP1A2) for slow metabolism, which is in line with my experience I got more sensitive over time.
So it must be some other mechanism that diminished enzyme production. Some of my liver (were those enzymes are produced) values were elevated over the last few years for no good reason, and I suspect the two could be related.
It's a bit annoying, as I'm reacting to trace amounts of caffeine in coffee, tea or chocolate, but I'm more worried about all the other, possibly carcinogenic, environmental toxins my liver won't be able to filter out.
One early in the morning, one maybe a bit before lunch, and one in the afternoon. Doesn't seem too out there. And you probably approach 5 cups if you're normalizing the size of a cup and seeing that people generally get bigger cups than that (I'd imagine one large cup in the morning and another in the afternoon would easily put you at 5 for the purposes of the study)
It depends on how much caffeine is in your cup. Rather than measuring the size of a cup, I would go by the amount of coffee, as in the weight of the beans, used to brew it. The actual amount of caffeine is not as easy to measure, and even for the same kind of beans, there is natural variation.
For a traditional Italian espresso, about 7g of coffee beans are extracted. For a third-wave double espresso, it's usually 18g or more.
In my opinion, 10x7g is a lot. 2x12g is more than enough for me.
caffeine extraction is largely a function of time in contact with water. Espresso is quite quick brew, so has less caffeine than other brewing methods (yes, there are plenty of other factors)
Rather than measuring the size of a cup, I would go by the amount of coffee, as in the weight of the beans, used to brew it.
I feel this is more precise than the ml cup measuremnts, but if you wanted to be really precise, you'd have to specify the type of beans used (the caffeine content varies widely) and even the brewing method https://oldchicagocoffee.com/coffee-bean-caffeine-content-by....
And - there is an influence - even in the region the beans are grown. In the link I provided they even go so far as to differentiate as to genetics of the beans.
There is no realistic scenario where, no matter your extractions or bean selections, 6-10 shots of espresso a day is not an enormous amount of caffeine
A grande americano at Starbucks is a 16 oz drink with three shots of espresso. Have one in the morning and one in the afternoon and you are at six shots of espresso. That doesn't seem all that enormous to me.
It was a slight attempt to highlight that the conversation about a purely subjective thing is missing the point entirely. In the context of scientific discovery trying to qualify the outcome based on an individual's personal interpretation of descriptive words is a fool's errand. Attempting to justify one's personal habits or predilections is squarely in the flat earther camp of scientific belief.
tea also has caffeine, although in smaller quantities. Maybe you mean that you don't care so you go by taste, just specifying because there's a common misconception about tea not having caffeine.
all tea has caffeine unless it's decaf. some things that aren't tea are called tea casually, but they aren't tea, for instance peppermint "tea" is not tea. by the same logic that one would call peppermint a tea, one would have to call coffee a tea. and beef broth.
That depends on culture. All camelia s. teas have it (green etc) but almost none of common herbal teas in Europe have it (chamomile, menta, sage etc.) They are not called casually teas.
are you saying chamomile isn't called tea but it's one of the teas without caffeine? if so that's very confused.
camelia sinensis is tea. when i said that other things are casually called tea, i mean that what chamomile tea, for example, ought to be called is a tisane or an herbal infusion. casually, people might call it a tea; some people are so casual about it that they think it actually is tea. but it isn't.
"tea" is a word that many use to indicate anything infused. But tea is anything that comes from camelia sinensis, while other beverages are more correctly called infusions. Camelia sinensis has caffeine.
books are too expensive when you factor in quality. Most edition today are crap, designed to look good, but be bad. Glued pages are even in "fancy" editions. And not speaking about content.
I get that many people will probably loose their jobs, but they need to adapt rather then defend a dying industry. Paper books must remain for high end editions of classics or very high demand books (category which in time coincide with classics).
Other books should be digital first, which is the most efficient medium for discovering new books by new authors, and cut costs by those authors who can easily self publish. Publishers should innovate in this direction, not by publishing thousand of crap books yearly (both in quality of paper etc. and content itself).
yes. Most people are upset and fear losing their job because they feel their job is sub-par. In reality, that's for most of them impostor syndrome, for some could be a wake up call.
Ironic how a libertarian would impose his personal views on "the system". Doesn't work? Let it die. Too many PhDs? Perhaps, let them search for a job. If they're indeed too many, a generation of plumbers etc. will emerge naturally. No one is impeding their businesses, if anything governments worldwide are aiding big technology companies in any way possible.
> Ironic how a libertarian would impose his personal views on "the system". Doesn't work? Let it die. Too many PhDs? Perhaps, let them search for a job. If they're indeed too many, a generation of plumbers etc. will emerge naturally. No one is impeding their businesses, if anything governments worldwide are aiding big technology companies in any way possible.
It's not ironic when you understand that libertarianism is really about maximizing personal liberty for an individual, and that often means constraining the liberty of others who would stand in their way.
It's the most libertarian thing for millions of people to have very constrained lives under the rule of some wealthy person who gets to do whatever he wants.
that's not true in my opinion. Being a libertarian means first recognizing what "liberty" is. So there are many different libertarians, one for each definition, and then one for each consequence that can be inferred from that definition. If you value liberty as the maximum liberty that doesn't constrain others more than you are constrained, that is, realizing that humanity is both freedom and society, it's a very different thing than using any mean necessary to obtain your own freedom.
I understand this isn't the perspective of many that call themselves "libertarian".
Andreesen and Thiel aren’t libertarians (at least, what libertarians claim to be). They advocate for a system of extreme top level control by CEO-kings.
3-5 is moderate? To me, 3 is already high.
Also, sample size is pretty low and they're all Irish.